KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dünya İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 2

A REVIEW ON TRANSPARENCY OF THE HUMAN MIND

A Review On Transparency Of The Human Mind

Ahmet Kadir Uslu(ÇANKIRI KARATEKİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9134-0059
Sayfa
409–422
Yayın Tarihi
2025-07-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Nevertheless, a weakened version of it can be defended.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Rene Descartes radically changed our conception of the human mind when he identified the essence of the mind as consciousness.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:According to this Cartesian view, the mind is identical with consciousness.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Nevertheless, a weakened version of it can be defended.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mind · Transparency · Consciousness

Özet

Rene Descartes radically changed our conception of the human mind when he identified the essence of the mind as consciousness. According to this Cartesian view, the mind is identical with consciousness. In other words, it is transparent. In contemporary philosophy, however, this thesis does not seem strong and convincing enough. In this post, we will discuss some important thoughts of philosophers to show why the Cartesian picture of mind is not true. In addition to philosophical arguments, we will also explore Freud’s statements about the human mind. Finally, we will come to the conclusion that the classical Cartesian view is untenable. Nevertheless, a weakened version of it can be defended.

Abstract

Rene Descartes radically changed our conception of the human mind when he identified the essence of the mind as consciousness. According to this Cartesian view, the mind is identical with consciousness. In other words, it is transparent. In contemporary philosophy, however, this thesis does not seem strong and convincing enough. In this post, we will discuss some important thoughts of philosophers to show why the Cartesian picture of mind is not true. In addition to philosophical arguments, we will also explore Freud’s statements about the human mind. Finally, we will come to the conclusion that the classical Cartesian view is untenable. Nevertheless, a weakened version of it can be defended.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Uslu, A. K. (2025). A REVIEW ON TRANSPARENCY OF THE HUMAN MIND. Dünya İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 2, 409–422. https://doi.org/10.55543/insan.1694856

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (18)

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1999). The Mind-Body Problem: An Opinionated Introduction. Westview Press.
  2. Bargh, John A., and Ezequiel Morsella. (2008). “The Unconscious Mind”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3:1, pp. 73-79.
  3. Bennett, Jonathan. (1994). “Locke’s Philosophy of Mind”. The Cambridge Companion to Locke pp. 89-114. Ed. V. Chappell. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Carruthers, Peter. (2008). “Cartesian Epistemology: Is the Theory of the Self-Transparent Mind Innate?”. The Journal of Consciousness Studies 15:4, pp. 28-53
  5. Descartes, Rene. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objections and Replies. Ed. and trans. Michael Moriarty. Oxford World’s Classics.
  6. Hatfield, Gary. (2011). “Transparency of Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject”. A Handbook of Early Modern Philosophy (1400-1700) pp. 361-75. Ed. Hubertus Busche. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag
  7. Kind, Amy. (2003). “What’s So Transparent About Transparency?”. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 115:3, pp. 225-44
  8. Jensen, Rasmus Thybo. (2012). “Merleau-Ponty and McDowell on the Transparency of the Mind”. Annual Review of the Phenomenological Association of Japan 28:1.
  9. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. (1996). New Essays on Human Understanding. Eds. and trans. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Locke, John. (1975). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
  11. Ludwig, Kirk. (2003). “The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview”. The Blackwell Guide to: Philosophy of Mind. pp. 1-46. Eds. Stephen P. Stich and Ted A. Warfield. Blackwell Publishing.
  12. Robinson, Howard. (2003). “Dualism”. The Blackwell Guide to: Philosophy of Mind. pp. 85-101. Eds. Stephen P. Stich and Ted A. Warfield. Blackwell Publishing.
  13. Rosenthal, David M. (1997). “A Theory of Consciousness”. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. pp. 729-53. Eds. Ned Block, Owen Flanagan, and Guven Guzeldere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  14. Rosenthal, David M. (1991). “Two Concepts of Consciousness”. The Nature of Mind. pp. 462-77. New York: Oxford University Press.
  15. Sarah, K., Paul. (2014). “The Transparency of Intention”. Philosophical Studies pp. 1-20.
  16. Searle, John. (2002). The Rediscovery of the Mind. The MIT Press.
  17. Simmons, Alison. (2011). “Cartesian Consciousness Reconsidered”. Philosophers’ Imprint 12:2, pp. 1-21. Michigan Publishing.
  18. Wilson, Timothy D. (2002). Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering The Adaptive Unconscious. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.